Date: 19990526 Docket: A-677-96
CORAM: MARCEAU J.A. DESJARDINS J.A. NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
-and
DOUGLAS LLOYD MATTHEWS
Respondent
Heard at Qu6bec, Qu6bec, on Wednesday, May 26, 1999. Judgment rendered from the Bench on Wednesday, May 26, 1999.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: MARCEAU J.A.
Date: 19990526 Docket: A-677-96
CORAM: MARCEAU J.A. DESJARDINS J.A. NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
-and
DOUGLAS LLOYD MATTHEWS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Québec, Québec, on Wednesday, May 26, 1999)
MARCEAU J.A.
[1] We are all of the view that this appeal brought against a decision of the Trial Division allowing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans cannot succeed.
Page: 2
[2] We agree with the learned motions judge that in exercising the power conferred on
him by section 7 of the Fisheries Act' to issue at his "absolute discretion" a fishing licence,
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may not do it by attaching to the licence limitations or
conditions, the sole purpose of which is to impose sanctions for the applicant's past
behaviour. However largely expressed is the discretion given to the Minister to issue or not
issue a licence, the qualifications that he may attach to a licence must necessarily be strictly
aimed at furthering the obj ects for which his authority exists, namely the management of the
fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish. The sole consideration in imposing
qualifications within a renewed licence that sanctioning past violations of the licence holder
may provide a deterrence that can indirectly help attain the objects of the Act is too indirect
and remote to be seen as properly within the purview of the clear mandate given to the
Minister. In our view, the learned motions judge was right when he wrote, at page 12 of his
reasons:
It may be that past compliance with terms of a licence by an applicant can be a relevant factor for the Minister's consideration as an aspect of conservation when deciding whether to issue a licence, as it was in Everett, but s. 7 (the general licensing authority) may not be exercised for the primary purpose of penalizing an applicant. If the Minister wishes to impose a penalty against a person who has reportedly violated the Act, the Regulations, or the terms of his or her license, Parliament, by providing the penal provisions of the Act, has directed how that purpose is to be met, by prosecution under the Act.
Since, in my opinion, the decision here was clearly intended for the purpose of penalizing the applicant for violating conditions of his 1994 snow crab licence that decision is outside the scope of the Minister's authority pursuant to s. 7. That section does not include the power to enforce penalties for offences for which prosecution is otherwise provided for under the Act.
R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14.
Page: 3
[3] We agree with the Trial Division that the decision of the Minister to reduce by three weeks the period of the licence issued to the respondent and to limit his quota allocation by 50% could not be allowed to stand.
[4] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
"Louis Marceau"
J.A.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 19990526 Docket: A-677-96
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant -and
DOUGLAS LLOYD MATTHEWS Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: A-677-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: The Attorney General of Canada v. Douglas Lloyd Matthews
PLACE OF HEARING: Qu6bec, Qu6bec
DATE OF HEARING: May 26, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARCEAU DATED: May 26, 1999
APPEARANCES
John J. Ashley FOR APPELLANT
J. Allan Shaw FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg FOR APPELLANT Deputy Attorney General of Canada
J. Allan Shaw FOR RESPONDENT Alberton, P.E.I.
Email this Content